Sunday, May 19, 2013

An Open Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926


Mr. Attorney General,

It has been an eventful week for the administration, and for you specifically.

Given the range of issues and the responses from yourself and the spokespeople for the administration, there is a groundswell of opinion that the president must either fire you, or that you must resign.

The Madison Conservative urges you to resist these cries for your dismissal and provide the American people with true leadership.

The four major issues at hand can be addressed by you in a voice that carries substantial weight. We are a nation of laws, and you are the chief law enforcement of this nation.

As such, you can provide legal clarity to the following:

Benghazi – Please determine who first included the notion of a video no one had ever seen as being the impetus for the assassination of four Americans. Inquire as to exactly where the President of the United States was during the critical hours of the assault on the diplomatic compound. Please provide former Secretary Clinton with the answer to her question – “what difference does it make now?”. I am sure you understand the need to school Mrs. Clinton on the realities of her question and the answer. Lastly, who gave the order for the troops who might have made a difference to stand down?

The HHS Secretary – Please investigate why Secretary Sebelius is soliciting funds from the organizations most directly affected by the Affordable Care Act to promote said legislation. Initial answers that there is nothing illegal about it do not seem sufficient and the ethics of such actions must be properly adjudicated.

The IRS – Given the ability of the IRS to intimidate, harass and harangue the American people on a whim, surely in this instance laws were broken. Please investigate why the President was not aware of anything until, as he has stated publicly, he saw it on the news. This strains credibility to the breaking point. You must stand against the tide and pursue this matter. The American people cannot be allowed to be in fear of a government that was established for, by and of the people. The claim by the political left that the IRS is somehow an autonomous entity is obfuscation at its best – are they unaware that the IRS is under the Department of the Treasury? You must pursue this to wherever it leads, and if you do so, I guarantee the American people will have your back.

The AP – Please explain to the American people two critical points on this matter. First, exactly why was it necessary to illegally obtain phone records from a media source? Surely, the freedoms of speech and of the press were infringed upon, and those responsible must be held accountable. Secondly, why exactly did you recuse yourself? Placing responsibility on an underling is inappropriate. You must take the reins of the investigation and present to the American people the facts, however and wherever you find them.

In short, Mr. Attorney General, DO YOUR JOB!

Given the cowardly assaults on personal freedoms by this administration, and your decision to acquiesce to such choices, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

I am aware that some taxpayer funded lowlife will find this letter to you and attempt to take retribution.

No need. As an American, you know where to find me.

I dare you.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

The Immigration Debate - part 3 - The Constitutional Perspective



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Given the lapse between blog posts, it is perhaps instructive to repeat the comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder during an April 24th speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund with respect to what is being proffered as the Obama administrations’ perspective on the immigration debate:

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity."

With equal parts frustration, exasperation and incredulity, it is difficult to decide where to begin with such an idiotic and ignorant statement, but the Madison Conservative will attempt to do just that.

“A pathway to earned citizenship” – There already exists a pathway to citizenship – it is the immigration law of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement official in the government – perhaps he should familiarize himself with the laws already on the books to deal with immigration.

“Unauthorized immigrants”. As previously noted, the language of the debate is critical. ‘Immigrant’ is a legal status – it is impossible to be an ‘unauthorized’ anything and retain legal status.

“The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented”. We should treat them with respect surely, but by using euphemisms such as 'undocumented’ attempts to convey that they are simply returning a gift without a proper receipt. There is a legal process to attain status under the law in this nation. Breaking that law should not be shrouded in colorful and sympathetic language. People who have broken the law should be referred to by their true legal status – ‘defendants’, and treated as such. By all means, if the administration wishes to change the law for future peoples, that is surely their right – under the law. In the same way a law cannot be enforced retroactively, so then a privilege cannot be conferred retroactively.

“By creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows”. It must be noted here that it was a choice of these individuals to break the law, thus forcing them into ‘the shadows’. Few criminals flaunt their location to the authorities. If they choose to accept responsibility for their choices, there exists a ‘mechanism’ for them to earn citizenship – the immigration laws of the United States. It is troubling that the Attorney General seems oblivious to this reality.

This is a matter of civil and human rights.” Actually, it is not, in any fashion or form. If one was to accept this idiotic statement, the next question must be answered. Why have any borders? If it is a matter of ‘civil and human rights’, then we should allow any person who wishes to live here to be allowed in. There is thus then no need for immigration policy, border agents and border security – any and all aspects of sovereignty for a nation no longer exists. Surely the billions of people around the world who are not enjoying the fruits of democracy should be allowed immediate entrance to then what was once the United States of America, a nation which would cease to exist , given the abolition of borders, all in the name of ‘civil and human rights’. This is a classic lie foisted by the political left. To prove this point, the Madison Conservative would ask the Attorney General if he would accept this proposition. Allow all the current illegal aliens some manner of legal status, save for forbidding them to vote for the next thirty years.

Exactly. No one of the political left would accept that concept. The question is why not? If this is about human and civil rights, fine, just omit the option for them to vote. The hypocrisy and cynicism of the Administration is thus revealed to the American people, who must enjoin the immigration debate with that understanding.

It is about who we are as a nation.” The accepted political mantra from the left is always “we are a nation of laws”, a phrase invoked at every opportunity to castigate and chastise their opposition. Fine, we are indeed a nation of laws. Perhaps the Attorney General of the United States should start enforcing them on people who flaunt them.

And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.” Yes, Mr. Attorney General, equal opportunity for the citizens of the greatest nation the world has ever known, but not for those who attempt to circumvent the due legal process, processes enacted to "support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

That was part of the oath you swore to when you accepted the position of Attorney General. The American people would only ask that you honor your oath, instead of playing cynical political games and exhibiting political cowardice for simple political expediency.

The American people deserve better.


Sunday, April 28, 2013

The Immigration Debate - part 2 - The Constitutional Perspective



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There is a well known and completely ignorant understanding of a biblical quote in the public vernacular that claims ‘money is the root of all evil’. A righteous claim, perhaps, but not at all properly quoted, let alone in proper context. The line in the Bible is as follows: ‘FOR THE LOVE OF money is the root of all evil”. A completely different message conveyed when spoken correctly.

The abuse of language and context is currently what is poisoning the necessary debate on immigration reform. It is troubling when the Attorney General of the United States, sworn to uphold, protect and defend the United States Constitution, is quoted as follows during an April 24th speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity."

Before delving into just how ignorant is this statement, the language of the issue needs to be clarified.

An ‘alien’ is defined as a non citizen of the United States. There are resident aliens, non-resident aliens – there are several delineations, but all ‘alien’ does is to properly convey that the individual is NOT a citizen.

There can be no such thing as an ‘illegal’ immigrant. Immigration is, by definition,  a legal process, and immigrant the legal status. The nonsense of lamenting the term ’illegal immigrant’ as somehow racist or worse ’insensitive to the individual’ is pointless and does nothing but add liberal guilt to the equation. There cannot be any ‘illegality’ associated with the process. What there should be is assigning the legal term of ‘defendant’ to one who breaks the law. An alien in this country without proper legal status is a criminal. It is that simple.

There are many of the political and media class who attempt to invoke the fourteenth amendment to bolster their argument about citizenship.

They are either ignorant, lying, or stupid, for it is obvious they have never read it, or understand its intent.

To clarify the point in an uambigous and direct manner, here is the complete amendment. 
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The 14th was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States.

That was the intent – to afford citizenship to former slaves. It was not intended to allow what are called ‘anchor babies’ – a child born in this country bestows instant citizenship upon its parents and immediate family.

The reading of the amendment is unambiguous – it was part of Reconstruction. Note the sections relative to ‘rebellion’ and ‘insurrection’. This amendment was intended to address the issues raised by the secession of the south. That explains the Section 4 relative to the ‘validity of the national debt’ not encompassing the debt incurred by the South after secession.

Taken in context, the amendment is clear as to its rationale for being

(Part 2 of this post will address the political folly of the ignorant as demonstrated by Attorney General Holders’ comments noted above).





Sunday, April 21, 2013

The Immigration Debate - Part I - A Personal Commentary



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

{ed. note: There are two sides to any given argument, and the validity of the issue more often than not lies in a third realm. The immigration bills being formulated in Congress and being debated amongst the body politic seem to be engaged on secondary issues and are seemingly avoiding the first step on the path to understanding and resolving this issue. To provide that needed clarity, the Madison Conservative will discuss this issue over the course of two blogs. The first requires some personal history to help properly frame the subsequent constitutional argument in favor of stricter and more intelligent reform.}

I am the grandson of immigrants, both paternally and maternally. I am the product of Italian and Polish heritages. Our house celebrated the feast of the seven fishes on Christmas Eve and broke and shared oplatek on Christmas Day.

My grandparents did not demand that their new home have anything printed in either Polish or Italian. They felt themselves Americans, and you spoke English in America if you were to enjoy the fruits of your labors in pursuit of the American dream. My maternal grandparents had the opportunity to become involved in their church, and grabbed hold with both hands in that endeavour. They were involved in their community and took pride in their hard won accomplishments. They did not have hyphenated identities; they were from Poland yes, but they were in fact ‘Americans’. The only complaint I ever heard from my grandmother about anything relative to a negative against the Polish people was how the local traffic reports identified the Kosciusko (correct pronunciation, according to my grandmother -  ‘Kos-koosh-ko’ ) Bridge which spans Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. They pronounce it ‘Kah-ski-ah-sko’ and it bothered her, but only a bit.

Both sets of grandparents were bi-lingual, and my maternal grandfather served his adopted nation in uniform during World War II.

I could go on and on about my grandparents, as would any proud grandson, but I made the above notations for several reasons, in the context of this discussion. First, my love, admiration and pride in my grandparents are unparalleled und unquestioned. Any comments made with regard to them are absent any hint of condescension or embarrassment and the intent is not to negate their accomplishments or their character.

That caveat made, the bigger point is that my grandparents, especially on the maternal side, are the classic stories of immigrants to this nation.

They came in pursuit of the American dream, where they knew that one respected the law, worked hard and became an asset to their newly adopted homeland. They asked for no special treatment and expected only to be treated fairly.

I believe that they, and all those who came before them and with them would be appalled at the state of immigration in this nation today.

My maternal grandmother often questioned, when venturing into the city, why there was so much official signage and such printed in Spanish. She asked not with contempt or anger, but with genuine confusion. There were never signs in Polish, save maybe for the local butcher or other shopkeeper in the neighborhood. Looking back on it now, I am in awe that my grandmother took no particular pride in being bi-lingual. It was merely what one did in America if they wished to become an American.

My grandmother was to turn a phrase, smart as a whip, yet I do not think she was smarter than every other single immigrant in the past thirty years. Yet, we are told that the influxes of Spanish speaking immigrants need to have official documentation and signage written in Spanish, lest we be considered somehow ‘unfair’ or discriminatory. Any reasonable attempt to establish English as the official language of government is instantly decried as being racist and bigoted. How? Is not making the assertion that these new immigrants are incapable of learning English and in need of help the true racism? Again, my grandparents were smart as any, yet I find it incredible to assert that they, and their contemporaries, were any more intelligent than our current immigrants.

My maternal grandparents had six children and in the midst of the great depression – the real one – managed to provide for them without needing any manner of federal financial assistance. Again, the claim is made by the political left that any attempt to impose stricter guidelines on public assistance for this generations immigrants is harsh and cruel.

My immigrant grandparents believed in the law, and the respect for this nation and its founding. There needs to be a cohesive argument put forth by advocates for immigrant amnesty, in any form, to explain how an individual who broke the law to be here in the first place should in any way be rewarded, given that their first act in their new nation was to flout the law.

The constitutional aspects of this issue will be discussed in the next blog, but in their absence, I will presume to speak for my grandparents.

To wit:

Please explain why today’s immigrants have political interests promoting legal amnesty for breaking the law, need not be required to speak the language of this nation and why are they receiving the hard earned tax money from those who work hard, provide for their families and help to build their communities?

These are not racist, xenophobic inquiries. They are simply the questions asked by those who came here to be a part of building the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

To them, I say salute’ and sto lat!


Sunday, April 14, 2013

Tax Day



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

In facetious ‘honor’ of this being the week that federal law mandates the submission of income tax filings, the Madison Conservative is presenting an abbreviated version of the blog this week to provide some insight into the current realities of income tax law and the hypocrisy of the Obama administration in its continued histrionics relative to ‘tax fairness’.  The President has been continually haranguing the electorate that those who can afford to pay more in taxes should do so, in order to demonstrate their patriotism.

Consider these facts about the tax system in this nation and the incredulity of the two most powerful men in the world with regard to the tax ‘fairness’ issue.

First, here is the idea of taxation as intended by the framers and founders of this country:

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken

Concisely and specifically written; to demonstrate the dangers of a Congress acting ‘in the best interests of fairness to the nation', consider the sixteenth amendment to our august governing document:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

A direct reversal of the founders’ intent, and one that has become a blight and a plague upon the freedom of the American people.

There is also this fact to confirm the belief of the American people that they are in fact being taxed too much and that indeed this nation does not have a taxation problem, it has a definite spending problem – (please note the dates provided – they occur AFTER Tax Day):

April 18 will be Tax Freedom Day, the day when Americans have worked enough to pay all of their federal and state taxes for 2013 – a round total of $4.22 trillion, according to an analysis done by the Tax Foundation.
That's five days later than in 2012.
Americans will pay more than $2.76 trillion in federal taxes and $1.45 trillion in state taxes for 2013 -- for a total of $4.22 trillion in taxes, or 29.4 percent of income. (Figures are rounded.)

April 18 is the 108th day of the year, or 29.4 percent of the calendar year.

Mitt Romney was chastised mercilessly by the political left when it was revealed that his tax rate was a shade over 15%. He was accused of squirreling money away in off shore accounts, and the point was raised about his ‘economic patriotism’ for having such a low rate. The mass media went apoplectic that his rate was not closer to the accepted ‘fair’ rate of 39%, the intended target of “tax equity’, so that the middle class would not have to pay for ‘tax cuts for the rich’.

In that context, consider this official government release:

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama paid $112,214 in federal income taxes in 2012 on adjusted gross income of $608,611, an effective rate of 18.4%, the White House said Friday.

Finally, a favorite of the Madison Conservative. There are many terms to describe this type of arrogance and outright theft. It is a fitting encapsulation of exactly what is wrong with the political class, the tax system and the mindset of a bloated and ineffective government.

To wit:

Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, took in $26,400 in 2012 by renting a cottage on the property of their Delaware home to the Secret Service, tax records released by the White House revealed.
They netted $17,944 of that rental money.

The namesake of this blog would be appalled.

The tax-paying electorate of America should be equally outraged and figuratively take pitchforks in hand and storm the castle.



Sunday, April 7, 2013

Background Checks



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

As noted in previous blog posts, there are a multitude of legislative and thus political issues rising to the forefront of national discourse. The Madison Conservative will approach all of them from the point of any given issue and its ramifications and realities as they may relate to the United States Constitution. There are many from the entire political and media spectrum that have chosen, and will choose, to address these issues as they relate to the ’feelings’ involved. While a component for some, the Madison Conservative considers such perspectives to be useless, pointless and cowardly. Government is not based upon feelings, or any other emotional foundation.

Once stripped of the emotional, all that remains are the harsh and complex realities that these issues require substantive and thoughtful solutions and cannot be addressed with simple catch-phrases and bumper sticker ideology.

This particular post will consider the attempts made by the political class to answer the concerns of the electorate in the aftermath of the horrific Newtown school shooting.

The issue, once stripped of the emotional content, is not resolved by banning weapons and stronger background checks, despite what the political class and their media flacks would try to have the American people believe.

The framers and founders had sufficient experience with tyranny and an unrestricted government. They wrote their new Constitution with the deliberate intent of limiting the scope and power of the government. While many point to the second amendment as their sole defense and bulwark to spurn any further gun control, that is a limited view and disregards the wider breadth of the peoples right to thwart off an ever encroaching government.

This is little doubt of the framers fears when the second, third and fourth amendments are taken together to appreciate that they had no illusions of a utopian federal government but rather had a clear and concise understanding of the need to curtail an unchecked federal bureaucracy.

To wit:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One hundred and thirteen words that limit the ability for the sweeping gun control the Obama administration and liberals in Congress wish to impose upon the people.

{It should be noted before proceeding that Chicago, Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the nation. It is also currently the murder capital of the nation. The founding fathers wisdom is still prescient today.}

The three amendments, taken as a whole, expressly limit the ability of the government to impose their will upon the people without cause, and provides for their ability to fight back.

It is that simple – the federal authorities cannot infringe upon the rights of the people to bear arms, to allow the government to take control of a citizens dwelling for any purpose, unless specifically providing due legal cause. It is unconstitutional to take private information – their medical history, in this case – and make it public, which is in effect what the political left is advocating.

It is impossible to square gun bans and limitless background checks with the Constitution.

It cannot constitutionally be done – it is that simple.

Of course, those rights do not come completely unfettered of responsibility. One may not use freedom of speech to shout ‘fire’, absent one, in a crowded theater. One may have the right to bear arms – that does not extend to owning tanks and nuclear missiles.

In addition, despite what the left would attempt to have the electorate believe, there are indeed background checks in place for weapons purchasers. There are a multitude of laws that have been enacted to regulate gun purchases, but they lay fallow and absent any manner of enforcement. Adding new layers of impotence serves no point – the law abiding citizen is already predisposed to  following the law; it is the criminal who will find a way to circumvent any new legislation, especially attempts to add new guidelines to background checks.

For those who want background checks extended to include any history of mental illness, there seems no ability to answer two fundamental questions inherent in that choice:

1 – Define what mental illness is, and at what point does it remove a citizens rights, and

2 – How will that information be provided and data-based? It would seem that many would attempt to extend The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to allow the personal medical information of a patient to be streamed into some national informational registry.

That is unacceptable, and no longer would allow a citizen to be secure in their property or personal papers and would constitute an illegal search and seizure, in this case a seizure of information.

These are not easy issues to grapple with, and a national debate must be had.

It cannot allow to be had by those offering quick salves to the problem. The American people must remain vigilant against an ever expanding federal government who is acting, the people are told, only in the nations best interest – to ‘save the children’, a convenient ruse used by many authoritarian regimes as a means to a tyrannical end.

We owe ourselves and our posterity more than subservient acquiescence.


Sunday, March 24, 2013

The Absurd and the Worrisome



The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

It has been an active week from a political perspective and it is now clear what the legislative battles will encompass for the next several months.

The Madison Conservative will begin to discuss these issues in depth upon our return in two weeks – next weeks post will be missed due to the Easter holiday.

The following bits of news information will provide the basis for the forthcoming discussions. They are garnered from various and sundry news sources and should be understood as evidence that in many ways, indeed the lunatics are running the asylum, and running it poorly.

These are being collated and posted with no specific rhyme or reason, save maybe for their absurdity level.

To wit:

A news story on the idiocy of ‘fairness’ gripping the political and media classes:

A Massachusetts principal has been criticized for canceling his school's Honors Night, saying it could be 'devastating' to the students who worked hard, but fell short of the grades.

David Fabrizio, principal of Ipswich Middle School, notified parents last week of his plan to eliminate the event.

"The Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients' families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade-point average," Fabrizio penned in his first letter to parents, the station reported.

A lengthy report on some classic governmental pork by a self-aggrandizing member of Congress:

A state-of-the-art transportation hub that was going to give students at South Carolina State University a leg up on the competition., the four building, 33-acre complex, named after its most famous alumnus, Rep. James Clyburn, would be a monument to the future -- where students could get hands-on experience and be a part of groundbreaking research in transportation.

Fast forward 15 years and the site once called the "project of the future" has morphed into a money-sucking pit. Aside from the $24 million in federal funding already spent on the project, an estimated $80 million more is needed to finish it. Of the four proposed buildings, only one has been constructed, and the program's core goal -- to provide educational and research opportunities to students at new high-tech facilities -- has obviously not been met.

Federal funding, as of now, has been suspended. But the school could still reapply. Funding for the James E. Clyburn Transportation Center was earmarked by Congress, through the Department of Transportation. 

The problems facing South Carolina State University aren't new or isolated. There have been multiple projects that have been financed or earmarked with taxpayer money that have been forced to be abandoned. Millions of dollars wasted on proposals green-lighted through the federal government and now put on hold have added to the crippling fiscal problems facing the country.

In South Carolina, the almost two decades-old construction project was supposed to include 8,500 square feet of automotive research and education space, a chiller plant and workspace. There were also supposed to be research bays and other transportation work pods. But that isn't what happened.

According to Clyburn, the 2005 groundbreaking was followed by a series of bizarre and crippling problems.

Clyburn, in a statement provided by his office, said the school learned -- after the groundbreaking -- that it did not own 3 acres in the middle of the 23-acre site and that negotiations to purchase that property took 18 months. Another year was tacked on for the city of Orangeburg to deed the street involved to the university. Then the state of South Carolina ordered the university to complete a traffic impact study, which took six months to do. In 2008, the chief architect for the project was diagnosed with cancer. This was followed by a record number of permit denials and modification demands. In 2009, more than one decade after the project was given the green light by the federal government, it finally won approval of the FHA and State Engineer's Office.

But the headaches only grew, Clyburn said.

The university opened the project up for bids on Dec. 18, 2009. The lowest of the 18 bids was selected, but four of the companies filed a protest. Then the chief architect died, and the search for a new one began. While permits were being secured and staff was being hired, the university underwent its own staffing changes -- there had been three different presidents and the staff on the Clyburn transportation center had changed "four or five times" Clyburn said.
Spiraling construction costs and the loss of federal recognition for the facility brought the program to a standstill multiple times. And last year, the school was hit with a number of audits. There have also been allegations of missing money and reports of duplicate billings, questionable payments and abuses by individual employees at the center.

The school itself is facing declining enrollment numbers and a $6 million shortfall.
University spokeswoman Antia Dawkins said in a written statement that the university has had to make changes in its plan to complete the center.

"The current approach is to seek the advice of a broad-based advisory board consisting of subject-matter experts in transportation," she said. "This advisory board will help us shape the focus and direction for the Transportation Initiative."
There is a possibility the amount of money the school needs to finish the project could eclipse the estimated $80 million.

"While various transportation activities have been discussed and included in our Transportation Program over the last 15 years, we cannot adequately determine the financial requirement for any plan that was discussed over that time period," Dawkins said.

Since accusations of gross mismanagement hit the school, Clyburn's enthusiasm seemed to ease a bit for the problem-plagued project. But instead of blaming the school and reported mishandling of resources, Clyburn believes the problem is a political one.
"The faculty and the school have become victims of vicious manufactured attacks by political partisans, and that is unfortunate for the university and the students who would benefit from this program," Clyburn said in a written statement to FoxNews.com Monday. "I don't know what the future of the center is, and I will leave that up to the university and its alumni to determine."

The reality that ‘Big Brother’ is watching:

The U.S. government is expanding a cybersecurity program that scans Internet traffic headed into and out of defense contractors to include far more of the country's private, civilian-run infrastructure.

As a result, more private sector employees than ever before, including those at big banks, utilities and key transportation companies, will have their emails and Web surfing scanned as a precaution against cyber attacks.

Under last month's White House executive order on cybersecurity, the scans will be driven by classified information provided by U.S. intelligence agencies — including data from the National Security Agency (NSA) — on new or especially serious espionage threats and other hacking attempts. U.S. spy chiefs said on March 12 that cyber attacks have supplanted terrorism as the top threat to the country.

Something from the comedy of the absurd:

Customers who want to pay with a $100 bill at a Rhode Island chain of restaurants will now have to fill out a form.

WJAR-TV reports that all four locations of Gregg’s will now require a name, phone number and driver’s license number whenever someone pays with a $100 bill.
Owner Bob Bacon says it’s because they have received five fake $100s in the last three months. He tells the station the policy is not about getting restitution if they receive a fake bill. He says it’s about creating a paper trail so they can track down whoever is making the fake bills.

A reminder that all tyranny needs to defeat democracy is for good people to go silent in the face of the loss of any modicum of liberty:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded Thursday that any bill that passes the Senate on gun control include broader background checks, drawing a tougher line on the issue ahead of a contentious floor debate next month.
Reid plans to tee up a vote on a package in early April, the first floor fight over guns in the wake of deadly mass killings, including at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., late last year.

The absolute idiocy of the Senate leadership in their apparent belief that the American electorate is not being taxed enough:

After a grueling, all-night debate that ended close to 5 a.m., the Senate on Saturday adopted its first budget in four years, a $3.7 trillion blueprint for 2014 that would fast-track passage of tax increases, trim spending gingerly and leave the government still deeply in the debt a decade from now. The tax bill would amount to approximately 1 trillion dollars over ten years.

And further proof that government is never one to miss a trick gouging the beleaguered American taxpayer:

Governors in cash-strapped states are revving the motor on efforts to hike the gasoline tax to cover shortfalls or pay for transportation projects -- frustrating drivers, Republican lawmakers and others in a delicate economy.

The tax hikes mean that drivers could soon be paying more at the pump, even if the price of fuel goes down.

Wyoming and California have already approved increases. Wyoming's state gas tax goes from 14 cents to 24 cents a gallon in July and is projected to bring in roughly $70 million in fiscal 2014 for transportation projects. And California regulators last month approved a 3.5-cent hike on its state excise tax that will take effect in July and increase the cost of an average fill-up by roughly 52 cents.
At least 14 other states -- including Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota -- have either passed similar increases or are considering them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

And after all, it is only a million dollars in a time of 16 trillion dollar debt and a slashing of public tours of the White House:

Vice President Biden and his entourage spent a little time in London in early February during his first foreign trip of the second term of the Obama administration.  A document released today revealed that the cost of lodging in London alone was close to half a million dollars. The contract was awarded on January 30, 2013 to the Hyatt Regency London for a total of $459,388.65.
As it turns out, Vice President Joe Biden's London stay in February was not the most expensive part of his trip. A government document released on February 14, 2013 shows that the contract for the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand came in at $585,000.50.

Still looking for a buck instead of being responsible fiscal stewards – this issue is exceptionally troubling for a nation looking for an economic resurgence:

Advocates of an effort to help states collect taxes on Internet sales won a symbolic but important victory Friday as the Senate signaled solid bipartisan support for the proposal.
Senators voted 75-24 for a nonbinding measure that endorses giving states more power to collect existing sales taxes on purchases their residents make from out-of-state Internet companies.

And lastly, for those convinced that members of Congress are so far removed from their constituency and live in a warped universe where hyperbole is never confronted with reality:

Automatic federal cuts are bringing staffers to the brink of starvation, suggested Debbie Wasserman Schultz, at a recent House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.

Restaurants on the House side of Congress are increasing in cost so much that aides are being “priced out” of a good meal, she said. The comments came by way of a discussion about the impacts of the sequester on lawmakers’ office budgets. Rep. Jim Moran said he may be forced to lay off a staffer — and then Ms. Wasserman Schultz weighed in with her tale of hard times.

{Just to clarify: An 8-ounce bowl of Ham and Bean soup at the Cannon Office Building’s carry-out cafĂ© costs $2. A gourmet wrap or sliced bread sandwich sells for about $5. And in the Longworth Building’s sit-down cafeteria, a serving of stuffed chicken, asparagus and mashed potatoes sells for about $7.}

Meanwhile, Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s staffers earn between $60,000 and $160,000 per year.